[middeljohn]

Be honest, do you think if the sheppard subway was completed, these towers would continue to be built?

Yes, just not there. The goal should be to further intensify all parts of the city, not just south of Bloor, and subways do that. LRT might do that too, but unless it's above grade it will always be limited to 10 minute frequencies, and it's a slower trip. Therefore less demand.

Edited to add:
I'm not against LRT. It would do wonders in Peel and Hamilton where you can be certain that they will never achieve densities to justify a subway system, at least not in the next 50 years. But North York, Scarborough and Etobicoke need to be on the subway route. I just don't see LRT connecting and intensifying those communities nearly as well as a well-developed subway system would.

 

[Rainforest]

The 14 km Sheppard Subway costs $1 Billion every 5 years to maintain.

??

The existing Sheppard subway is 5.5 km long, and certainly does not cost $200 million a year to maintain (imagine how much the 35-km long Y-U-S subway would cost to maintain in that case).

 

[Rainforest]

I somewhat disagree with other people's claims that Sheppard and Finch will not become quaint, medium density "avenues" with the SELRT and FWLRT. It may take time, but I believe it will spur a significant amount of development and private investment. The line will be a draw for townhomes, lowrise, medium rise, storefronts. Even simple things like trees lining these arterial roads will help this along. Railed transit improves property values and draws investment. And frankly, I would much rather see lower or medium density development than the out of place 40-storey buildings alongside bungalows like around Sheppard or Yonge.

As for claims that in-median LRT isn't enough to draw new transit riders...I don't believe that for a second. First of all, the ridership on these bus routes is already significant enough to warrant the investment. Second, any railed transit is attractive enough to attract more riders than a bus. Simple as that. This is proven. Whether it's fully grade-separated, or slower Transit City style; railed transit is a catalyst for new riders that you simply cannot achieve with buses.

I expect that in-median LRT's will bring in more riders, simply by increasing the transit modal share in their catchment areas.

I doubt that they will bring much more density, because locations near subway stations, or anywhere near downtown, are much more appealing and those lands are not used up yet. Developers could build along LRT lines, but they have even better options.

Note that examples of LRT fostering density mostly apply to smaller cities with less advanced public transit systems. When LRT is the highest-order transit mode in town, it will certainly attract density. When it is mid-order, not necessarily.

 

[sixrings]

Yes, just not there. The goal should be to further intensify all parts of the city, not just south of Bloor, and subways do that. LRT might do that too, but unless it's above grade it will always be limited to 10 minute frequencies, and it's a slower trip. Therefore less demand.

Edited to add:
I'm not against LRT. It would do wonders in Peel and Hamilton where you can be certain that they will never achieve densities to justify a subway system, at least not in the next 50 years. But North York, Scarborough and Etobicoke need to be on the subway route. I just don't see LRT connecting and intensifying those communities nearly as well as a well-developed subway system would.

The problem with your argument is that there is vast areas of land right beside subway stops that are not occupied by major development. In fact the Danforth lost stores and development when they replaced the streetcar with a subway. The development along sheppard has part to do with the subway part to do with being close to the 401 and part to do with it all starting at yonge street. Its not just all because of a subway. Plus a large majority of the people who live at places like yonge and sheppard as well as bayview and sheppard, leslie and sheppard, and don mills and sheppard drive primarily.

 

[44 North]

Yes, just not there. The goal should be to further intensify all parts of the city, not just south of Bloor, and subways do that. LRT might do that too, but unless it's above grade it will always be limited to 10 minute frequencies, and it's a slower trip. Therefore less demand.

LRT will spur major development. Perhaps not along the lines of gargantuan, out of place developments like on Sheppard, but investment nonetheless. This is one of the main fallacious arguing points from anti-LRT crowds I dislike hearing; that LRT stymies development and only subways have the power to reshape a city. As long as the city changes the zoning, developers will eye it. And if there's infrastructure that increases the property's value, then the condos will come.

To me, the deeper root of this backward anti-LRT arguing point seems to be anti-Old Toronto/downtown sentiment, mixed with a desire to see rival CBDs to make the former boroughs 'better'. It's antiquated thinking, and we're not Metro anymore.

The development along sheppard has part to do with the subway part to do with being close to the 401 and part to do with it all starting at yonge street.

I think it's part to do with the subway, but over 90% due to zoning changes. As long as zoning is changed, the condos will come.

 

[Rainforest]

Lawrence LRT should be possible.

It would have to be tunneled from Bathurst to somewhere east of Glendon campus (i.e. halfway between Bayview and Leslie).

Jane to Bathurst is very wide, but west of Jane and up to Scarlett / Dixon, width may be an issue too.

 

[sixrings]

You'd still have to tunnel under the Bridle Path though.

Building a partially underground Lawrence LRT to deal with Eglinton's inevitable overcrowding problems is much more expensive than simply making Eglinton a subway with elevated sections the way it should have been in the first place, if it was not for David Miller's insistence on using LRT in places where it is clearly inappropriate.

You could simply start Lawrence East at leslie.... People would most likely be transferring to the Don mills DRL line if they were coming from the East anyways if they were heading downtown.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

??

The existing Sheppard subway is 5.5 km long, and certainly does not cost $200 million a year to maintain (imagine how much the 35-km long Y-U-S subway would cost to maintain in that case).

I made a mistake in my math. I accidentally calculated for hypothetical Sheppard Subway from Albion to STC, which was being discussed in another thread. My bad

The TTC spends $505 Million (about half their budget) on subway maintenance and operations.

That's about $7.4 Million per km per year.

If the 14km Sheppard Subway were built, that would cost $104 Million annually, about 20% of the TTC's subway operations budget. That's far too much for a line that will have so little riders.

 

[nfitz]

The Sheppard line has spurred over $1 billion of construction of new housing, including several high-rise condominium towers, along its route as transit-oriented developments. Particularly noteworthy are the condominiums around Bayview Station, where none had previously existed prior to the 2000s.

All great, but there's little evidence these people are actually using the subway in great numbers. TTC reported that ridership on Sheppard dropped this year, with the biggest drop being at Don Mills station and then Leslie station. While there was a bit of growth at Leslie and some growth at Bessarion - presumably from development, it's less than the ridership drop at Don Mills. Even with the growth, Bessarion still has less than half the ridership of any other subway station (Old Mill) - though one bright spot, is the second lowest station is now Old Mill - rather than Leslie.

 

[salsa]

Are you factoring in extra maintenance and operational costs? The 14 km Sheppard Subway costs $1 Billion every 5 years to maintain. Even if we assume that the LRT line will cost 60% as much as the subway to maintain over 60 years we still wouldn't be saving a dime. We'd just be wasting money that could have been used to improve other services.

This guy says all kinds of things without any facts to support it. I hope he also factored in the extra cost of an Eglinton subway to the airport as well.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

This guy says all kinds of things without any facts to support it. I hope he also factored in the extra cost of an Eglinton subway to the airport as well.

Considering Renforth - Mt Dennis is 767 million dollars, the subway I think would be around 2 billion.

 

[W. K. Lis]

You wouldn't need a line on Lawrence if you built a high capacity subway like you should build.

Building anything on the central part of Lawrence would require expensive tunneling anyway.

A suburban subway will only have stations far apart to be maybe financial efficient, then only maybe. A light rail rail may have stops or stations closer together, allowing for more development spread out.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

LRT will spur major development. Perhaps not along the lines of gargantuan, out of place developments like on Sheppard, but investment nonetheless. This is one of the main fallacious arguing points from anti-LRT crowds I dislike hearing; that LRT stymies development and only subways have the power to reshape a city. As long as the city changes the zoning, developers will eye it. And if there's infrastructure that increases the property's value, then the condos will come.

To me, the deeper root of this backward anti-LRT arguing point seems to be anti-Old Toronto/downtown sentiment, mixed with a desire to see rival CBDs to make the former boroughs 'better'. It's antiquated thinking, and we're not Metro anymore.



I think it's part to do with the subway, but over 90% due to zoning changes. As long as zoning is changed, the condos will come.

Well consider all the suburban CBDs have lost out to the 905, that thinking is misplaced. I made a thread on it 44, check it out. http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/showthread.php/20273-NYCC-Etobicoke-CC-STC-Relics-of-the-past

 

[salsa]

A suburban subway will only have stations far apart to be maybe financial efficient, then only maybe. A light rail rail may have stops or stations closer together, allowing for more development spread out.

I think mid-ride development along the entire street is way more appropriate for the suburbs than a bunch of glass towers at a few intersections that neighbourhoods routinely oppose.

 

[Adjei]

All great, but there's little evidence these people are actually using the subway in great numbers. TTC reported that ridership on Sheppard dropped this year, with the biggest drop being at Don Mills station and then Leslie station. While there was a bit of growth at Leslie and some growth at Bessarion - presumably from development, it's less than the ridership drop at Don Mills. Even with the growth, Bessarion still has less than half the ridership of any other subway station (Old Mill) - though one bright spot, is the second lowest station is now Old Mill - rather than Leslie.

So people are arguing that we should extend the Sheppard subway and not force those miserable LRTs n them but yet you have ridership dropping. Yeah that's a real smart idea.